From what I understand, bots cannot multitable. You know what I'm saying is true.

You've played high limit poker for years and yet you make an obviously absurd statement like this?

oh i didnt even see that quote from sillysal

ive been pretty active in all these threads and i have absolutely no recollection of anyone ever saying bots can't multitable.

but thinking about it, i can't really recall ever seeing any of the bots multitable.

i guess sillysal is pretty familiar with how they work

So what about that pattern Fulltilt? Silly sal=multitable human programmed bot no multitable. Sounds fishy that silly would play herself and at the same time employ the human programed superior bot at another table to play. Wow never seen so many players scared of these human programmed bots, these bots must bluff real well and detect bluffs huh.

Crazy Mike was not involved in this investigation. I have asked that Mike Haven contact me directly but he is going to bed for the night. We have forwarded him on what I believe to be conclusive evidence, but I would prefer that he review it and respond directly. Personally I would have preferred a final review tonight, but that doesn't seem like its going to happen. I don't want to comment further on the case, but would prefer a trusted third party. For any legitimate questions contact me through PM.

It's important to realize that this statistical comparison is the tip of the iceberg of what FTP security may have done. They have all of the hand records with complete hole cards and a very large sample size. There are literally thousands of stats that can be computed if you are willing to write a little software to do the analysis. Examples for HU play:

1. Hero raises preflop from the SB/Button, bets and 3-bets the flop, and gets checkraised on the turn. Hero then:

This process of creating and comparing new stats can go on-and-on until you get bored (or three weeks pass ). If two players are identical in every aspect of their game then the only reasonable conclusion is that they are the same player. It's not possible for two human beings to play a sophisticated game of poker in such an identical fashion. Indeed it is unlikely that the same player could play 100K hands and then play another 100K hands that looked exactly like the first. People change over time. Only software can be duplicated to produce multiple unchanging copies of itself.

The population of regular high-limit HU LHE players on FTP is very small, perhaps a few dozen at most. Go open up FTP sometime and take a look around. It's not like FTP searched all the people on Earth to find three identical players.

The case of the low-level NL grinders who were acquitted of botting despite identical stats is different in the following ways:

1. The system they were playing was deliberately designed to be a baby system that multiple people could learn to play identically.

2. It was alleged (never publicly confirmed but FTP probably checked) that they each played the blinds in their own personal way.

3. They all admitted to be related to each other. So far Sal has not made any claim that she and the other two players worked together to develop an identical style. In all likelihood the opposite is true. They probably carefully made their accounts look unrelated to hide their botting activity.

Sal is demanding to see evidence that a bot was running on her computer. That may never be forthcoming for the simple reason that the bot may not have been running on her computer. It's quite possible that the AI program ran on a different computer with Sal sitting at the computer providing the interface. That would allow her to handle routine chores like sitting down, posting, and avoiding scary opponents while the AI program did all the actual playing. Given the stakes the bot was playing it would be greedy not to monitor it at all times anyway.

If my hypothesis is correct it doesn't excuse anything. Using an AI program to make your decisions is cheating regardless of who is holding the mouse.

As others have said, surely it is not a convincing defence to just say “I am not a bot, because I have tilted / quit good games / don’t have timing tells”. Someone does not have to run bot software on their account 100% of the time; in fact if they were operating a bot some of the time it would be in their interests to have a pattern of play where they are exhibiting non-bot characteristics. This should be pretty obvious.

Also, the change in Sillysal's tone from “please post any data you have on me” to “this data does not prove anything, you need to prove I was running bot software” is strange to say the least.

I am one of the 30/60 , 50/100 HU regulars mainly on FT, and the thing that always made me curious about pokergirl z and daurgman is their relatively low VPIP from the button. Most HU regulars have AT LEAST 80 minimum from here, whereas I believe all the bots previous that were busted(bocaloca, bono1945) are all under this.

Raising only 65-75% from the button is definitely missing value preflop, and can be quite the mistake over time.

A question for the mid/high HU limit players. Are there regulars who play exclusively HU, or is it common for players at these stakes to also play 3-4 handed depending on game selection?

I am thinking back to earlier in the thread when a player mentioned Sillysal would immediately sit out on WPX when a game became 3-handed, even when playing a huge fish. Just wondering whether there is a class of strictly HU players for whom this is common practice or not.

A question for the mid/high HU limit players. Are there regulars who play exclusively HU, or is it common for players at these stakes to also play 3-4 handed depending on game selection?

I am thinking back to earlier in the thread when a player mentioned Sillysal would immediately sit out on WPX when a game became 3-handed, even when playing a huge fish. Just wondering whether there is a class of strictly HU players for whom this is common practice or not.

Most of the mid/high HU limit players on FT play HU exclusively. Not all but most.

bono, flopbenice, bobaloca, lip2lip, daurgman 8 months ago etc all play exactly the same and all play good. they all have the same bot timing tells etc

grego, poker girl z, beatme1 and daurgman in the last few months all play exactly the same (but different from the first group) and all get the same obvious poker-stuff wrong. none of them have ever had bot timing tells that i've observed. this group is pretty much break-even at this point which shows a certain level of competence given the stakes they play.

If my hypothesis is correct it doesn't excuse anything. Using an AI program to make your decisions is cheating regardless of who is holding the mouse.

Um, no it isn't

As evidenced by nlnut et al - using computer-aided decision making is A-OK on FTP providing a human is at the controls and has the ability to override the bot's "suggestion"

Same goes for Stars regarding certain applications on the "allowed software" list.

Why on earth would a site deem "advisory" class applications a bannable offense?

The danger of poker bots is not that they play correctly - a trained human can do that - it is that they can play unattended 24/7 without tilt and can be replicated at will.

No?

I think when you get to the stage of allowing players to just follow the output of some poker AI and say it's ok so long as a human clicks the buttons, then that will be a sure fire way to kill online poker. It seems strange that in online chess/backgammon it is quite clearly cheating to use an engine to advise you (even if you press the buttons yourself...).

First NU LHE was targeted probably because of the availability of research papers, but I fear that next SNGs will be targeted in a similar way. I previously tried to bring peoples attention to this in this post, but was surprised at the level of apathy and the number of people who seem to think it's fine to use poker AI so long as "you click the buttons yourself".

If poker sites wish to allow realtime game-theoretic advisers for SNGs then I think they should also allow them for HU LHE. What exactly is the difference?

bono, flopbenice, bobaloca, lip2lip, daurgman 8 months ago etc all play exactly the same and all play good. they all have the same bot timing tells etc

grego, poker girl z, beatme1 and daurgman in the last few months all play exactly the same (but different from the first group) and all get the same obvious poker-stuff wrong. none of them have ever had bot timing tells that i've observed. this group is pretty much break-even at this point which shows a certain level of competence given the stakes they play.

No arguments about pok z and greggo`s timing tells, barely watched them ever, but the 15 minutes I watched daurgman, guy paused every time it was his turn to act, preflop, postflop, whatever, it was very consistent.

Saw him bust a few times on other occasions as well, never reloading when with a few BBs left, and when completely bust his buyin, just sit there with no chat at all, no reload of any sort, nothing.

It's very unlikely that these stats in particular came from the same player/bot. If the player's true stat is 65, then after 62K hands they will be within that ~.4 of the 65 95% of the time. It's about a one in ten million event that this player would have a 66 stat. It's virtually impossible for the stat to be 68 over the samples discussed. Of course, this type of analysis assumes things that may not be true such as static game conditions/inability of the bot to adjust. It also assumes that MH or FT didn't round 65.4 to 65 and 65.6 to 66. Even so, I felt it necessary to point out that appearances here maybe deceiving and that it's possible to draw the opposite conclusion from the data then is obvious from just looking at it.

I think when you get to the stage of allowing players to just follow the output of some poker AI and say it's ok so long as a human clicks the buttons, then that will be a sure fire way to kill online poker.

i dont think dave's post is accurate. i think what he posted is the conspiracy theory the zoo agreed upon with those nl bots. but nobody knows the real truth.